Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
The notion that women do not get equal pay for equal work is false, so obviously so that I don't understand how anybody who looks at the data objectively can still support it.
That said, Obama claims to believe that notion to be true, and has criticized McCain for failing to support equal pay/equal work legislation. And, much to my amusement, Obama's a hypocrite--
Quote:
Deroy Murdock: On gender pay equity, Obama only talks the talk
A typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart by leaving Obama's office and going to work for McCain.
By DEROY MURDOCK
"Now is the time to keep the promise of equal pay for an equal day's work," Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said Aug. 28 in his convention acceptance speech. He told the crowd in Denver: "I want my daughters to have exactly the same opportunities as your sons."
Obama's campaign Web site is even more specific. Under the heading "Fighting for Pay Equity," the women's issues page laments, "Despite decades of progress, women still make only 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. A recent study estimates it will take another 47 years for women to close the wage gap with men at Fortune 500 corporate offices. Barack Obama believes the government needs to take steps to better enforce the Equal Pay Act."
Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his U.S. Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women 83 cents for every dollar his men make.
A watchdog group called LegiStorm posts online the salaries for Capitol Hill staffers. "We have no political affiliations and no political purpose except to make the workings of Congress as transparent as possible," its Web site explains. Parsing LegiStorm's official data, gleaned from the secretary of the Senate, offers a fascinating glimpse at pay equity in the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.
The most recent statistics are for the half-year from Oct. 1, 2007 to March 31, 2008, excluding interns and focusing on full-time personnel. For someone who worked only until, say, last February 29, extrapolating up to six months' service simplifies this analysis. Doubling these half-year figures illustrates how a year's worth of Senate employees' paychecks should look.
Based on these calculations, Obama's 28 male staffers divided among themselves total payroll expenditures of $1,523,120. Thus, Obama's average male employee earned $54,397.
Obama's 30 female employees split $1,354,580 among themselves, or $45,152, on average.
Why this disparity? One reason may be the underrepresentation of women in Obama's highest-compensated ranks. Among Obama's five best-paid advisers, one was a woman. Among his top 20, seven were women.
Again, on average, Obama's female staffers earn just 83 cents for every dollar his male staffers make. This figure certainly exceeds the 77-cent threshold that Obama's campaign Web site condemns. However, 83 cents do not equal $1.00. In spite of this 17-cent gap between Obama's rhetoric and reality, he chose to chide GOP presidential contender John McCain on this issue.
Obama responded Aug. 31 to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's Republican vice-presidential nomination. Palin "seems like a very engaging person," Obama told voters in Toledo, Ohio. "But I've got to say, she's opposed – like John McCain is – to equal pay for equal work. That doesn't make much sense to me."
Obama's criticism notwithstanding, McCain's payment patterns are the stuff of feminist dreams.
McCain's 17 male staffers split $916,914, thus averaging $53,936. His 25 female employees divided $1,396,958 and averaged $55,878.
On average, according to these data, women in John McCain's office make $1.04 for every dollar a man makes. In fact, all other things being equal, a typical female staffer could earn 21 cents more per dollar paid to her male counterpart – while adding $10,726 to her annual income – by leaving Barack Obama's office and going to work for John McCain.
How could this be?
One explanation could be that women compose a majority of McCain's highest-paid aides. Among his top-five best-compensated staffers, three are women. Of his 20-highest-salaried employees, 13 are women. The Republican presidential nominee relies on women – much more than men – for advice at the highest, and thus, best-paid levels.
If anyone on McCain's Senate staff is unhappy, McCain's male staffers might complain that they seem to get a slightly raw deal.
In short, these statistics suggest that John McCain is more than fair with his female employees, while Barack Obama – at the expense of the women who work for him – quietly perpetuates the very same pay-equity divide that he loudly denounces. Of all people, the Democratic standard-bearer should understand that equal pay begins at home.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
WOW!!!! Figures don't lie but liars can figure!!!!
The only conclusion that you can draw from this article is that generally, McCain pays his people more.
Everything else is crap. Without a comparison of how much women vs. men in the exact same job category (and same boss) earn, all else is meaningless. Does Obama have more men than women in top campaign positions? Yep!!! And that's about it. After seeing that bozo from HP that McCain hired, I'm betting he wishes he had one less female.....
I can tell you that the best statistician on this board is DWKB.... I'd like hear his take on this silly article.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Bogus numbers, IMO. They aren't doing "equal work."
You just HAD to say it better than me, didn't ya?????
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
WOW!!!! Figures don't lie but liars can figure!!!!
The only conclusion that you can draw from this article is that generally, McCain pays his people more.
Everything else is crap. Without a comparison of how much women vs. men in the exact same job category (and same boss) earn, all else is meaningless. Does Obama have more men than women in top campaign positions? Yep!!! And that's about it. After seeing that bozo from HP that McCain hired, I'm betting he wishes he had one less female.....
I can tell you that the best statistician on this board is DWKB.... I'd like hear his take on this silly article.
So you agree the equal pay/equal work argument is fictious. I'm impressed.
So you agree the equal pay/equal work argument is fictious. I'm impressed.
No..... we disagree as to whether this bogus article meands something or not....
For the record, the "liar" in "liars can figure" is the author of the article, not you personally...... some people are getting a little sensitive around here so I thought I'd be very specific...
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
No..... we disagree as to whether this bogus article meands something or not....
For the record, the "liar" in "liars can figure" is the author of the article, not you personally...... some people are getting a little sensitive around here so I thought I'd be very specific...
I'm not one to get sensitive--but thanks for the heads up.
And I agree this article means nothing (like my original post said, the notion of less pay for women for equal work is false). But Obama touts it, supported legislation that would have made it almost impossible for a company to pay men more than women and stay afloat--and he pays men more than he pays women. If that legislation had passed, and one of his female staffers sued him, Obama would have the burden of proving that he paid her less for a reason other than her gender. And Obama paying his female staffers less, and refusing to hire women to positions equal in the hierarchy to the men he hired, is hypocritical.
I'm not one to get sensitive--but thanks for the heads up.
And I agree this article means nothing (like my original post said, the notion of less pay for women for equal work is false). But Obama touts it, supported legislation that would have made it almost impossible for a company to pay men more than women and stay afloat--and he pays men more than he pays women. If that legislation had passed, and one of his female staffers sued him, Obama would have the burden of proving that he paid her less for a reason other than her gender. And Obama paying his female staffers less, and refusing to hire women to positions equal in the hierarchy to the men he hired, is hypocritical.
At least it seems that way to me.
You're making a few assertions here that are not based in anything remotely provable.... He pays men (in general) more than women because they are in higher job classifications. There is no evidence that he pays men more than women in the same job classification. And saying that he refuses to hire women to positions equal in the hierarchy to the men is definitely not provable and almost certainly not true. What you can say is he's hired more men than women in higher positions for some reason. Maybe McCain or someone on the right should ask him that question so that we can at least hear what he's got to say for himself. But until that time, it's way over the top to state that he "refuses" to hire them.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Unequal pay is not a fallacy. This story doesn't prove either contention though.
The only way to find out is to have a salary survey of women and men doing the exact same job in the same area, most desirably in the same company. Then running the numbers and seeing how it bears out. You can't compare cross function roles though and say it's proof that it either exists or doesn't though, because the salary there is based on job classification, not sex.
__________________
I'm the anti-TNT. I don't do drama.
So you agree the equal pay/equal work argument is fictious. I'm impressed.
I can only speak to what I know about this issue. I do believe it to be true, 100%. I've watched it happen to my wife in a male dominated field. I watched how they hired her as an associate VP, while every other person (all males) hired into that role at her office were never made an associate. Her position/duties were identical to theirs, the title and pay were the only difference. Not wanting to blow the oportunity, she stuck it out until proving herself and then pointed out the descrepency. Her company is very large and she has since met other women in other offices that the same practice takes place. Since, the associate has been removed, but because she was hired at a lower wage, she's now at the bottom of the proper payscale because they based the raise on her previous pay. It's still over six figures, but she's makes less than all the males in the same role.
You're making a few assertions here that are not based in anything remotely provable.... He pays men (in general) more than women because they are in higher job classifications. There is no evidence that he pays men more than women in the same job classification. And saying that he refuses to hire women to positions equal in the hierarchy to the men is definitely not provable and almost certainly not true. What you can say is he's hired more men than women in higher positions for some reason. Maybe McCain or someone on the right should ask him that question so that we can at least hear what he's got to say for himself. But until that time, it's way over the top to state that he "refuses" to hire them.
Hey, I say things way over the top for a living, so it's tough to know the difference.
But I think you do have a point here, and I'm probably nitpicking on this issue. I think I'll curl back up in that "Obama's a socialist" blanket I always have lying around, where I always feel secure.
But I think you do have a point here, and I'm probably nitpicking on this issue. I think I'll curl back up in that "Obama's a socialist" blanket I always have lying around, where I always feel secure.
Good One!!!
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
I can only speak to what I know about this issue. I do believe it to be true, 100%. I've watched it happen to my wife in a male dominated field. I watched how they hired her as an associate VP, while every other person (all males) hired into that role at her office were never made an associate. Her position/duties were identical to theirs, the title and pay were the only difference. Not wanting to blow the oportunity, she stuck it out until proving herself and then pointed out the descrepency. Her company is very large and she has since met other women in other offices that the same practice takes place. Since, the associate has been removed, but because she was hired at a lower wage, she's now at the bottom of the proper payscale because they based the raise on her previous pay. It's still over six figures, but she's makes less than all the males in the same role.
What do you have to say it isn't a reality?
I ought to address this since I started the thread, but I've got to run. I'll get to it tonight. Short answer, personal experience, and the equal pay/equal work proponents' reliance on bad or faulty data.
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
